Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory
More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.
All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.
The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
The list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."
The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.
"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."
Fine. Then give me ONE gene, or similarly sizable genetic sequence, that is more similar in Birds and any non-ruling reptile, or other animal whatsoever, than in Birds and Crocodilians. Or give me any comparable anomaly. Say more similar in Humans and Horses than Humans and Chimps. Whatever.
BTW, that's exactly how a presented it. As a deduction, not as a fact:
Except of course as they may lead to deductions from common descent. For instance [i.e. as an instance of such a deduction] birds share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than with other reptiles, or than with any other animal.
Keep working on those reading comprehension skills. We'll get there! In the mean time I'll continue to help when I can.
You screwed up and you know it.
Well, educate me then. I was reacting to the following statement you made.
C14 dates are extrapolations and are therefore interpretations of data, not facts, which are different things altogether.
(And you can leave out the personal attacks this time.)
As I said in other posts, the fossil 'record' is imposed on the evidence by men.
And in itself, the statement that birds 'share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than with other reptile' means nothing. What common ancestor? Unidentified. Non-existent. No DNA to sequence. Imaginary.
No *facts* were presented.
You don't know the difference between inferences and facts.
It had nothing to do with personalities.
You are projecting again.
Your request doesn't make any sense. What would showing similarities between chicken and human genes or turtle and crocodile genes show?
Human/bird similarities, turtle/crocodile genetic relationships, are readily available but have not falsified 'common descent'. It is simply ignored as having developed after the split.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/02/990217075533.htm
"Previous studies of gene similarities--a relatively newer tool for determining relationships between species--have never agreed with the more traditional anatomical methods on this issue. "Turtles turned out to be not where they were supposed to be on the family tree whenever their genes were included in a research study," says Hedges, who decided recently to assemble all the genetic data available in order to resolve the question."
Oops, turtles weren't where they were supposed to be genetically. Darwinism is falsified.
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/197/62
"The analysis also showed that genes conserved between human and chicken often are also conserved in fish. For example, 72 percent of the corresponding pairs of chicken and human genes also possess a counterpart in the genome of the puffer fish (Takifugu rubripes). According to the researchers, these genes are likely to be present in most vertebrates."
Humans, chickens and puffer fish share a lot of genetic information. I don't remember Darwinism predicting this. Looks like evolution is falsified.
Those relationships mean nothing. Common descent and evolution are unfalsifiable. Your request is meaningless.
Yep, we're still waiting for some *facts* that falsify YEC.
Meanwhile you play around with word games.
Don't worry. I understand why. You don't have any facts.
Either present data and facts to support your lame C14 claims about measuring *dates* or go educate yourself.
You're just trying to get away from your mistake.
How do you know that radiocarbon really works?
It is possible to test radiocarbon dates in different ways. One way is to date things that you already know the age of. Libby did this when he first developed the method, by dating artefacts of Egyptian sites, which were already dated historically. Another way is to use tree rings. Every year a tree leaves a ring, the rings increase in number over time until a pattern of rings is formed. Sometimes the tree has many hundreds of rings. Scientists can date the age of the tree by counting and measuring the rings. Radiocarbon daters can then date the tree rings and compare the dates with the real age of the tree. This is a very good way of testing radiocarbon, and we now know that there are some differences in radiocarbon dates and real time. Most of the time radiocarbon dating is accurate, but sometimes it is different from the real age by a small amount. Using a calibration curve, which is based on radiocarbon dates of tree rings over the last 10000 years, radiocarbon daters can correct for this problem. Source.
The relationship of turtles to other reptiles has always been murky and problematic. (At least the last I'd read up on it.) But there are plenty of cases where the general relationship is clear and compelling. E.g. birds and crocs, versus anything else; e.g. humans and chimps, versus anything else; e.g. (to bring in a more distant relationship) spiders and horseshoe crabs, versus any non-arachnid; etc. There is a large number of such strong cases that the molecular sequence evidence could potentially falsify, but doesn't.
Yes, the molecular evidence has often clarified our understanding of problematic relationships, or even changed our phylogenies at a certain level of detail versus traditional anatomical based phylogenetic schemes. (E.g. showing that humans and chimps form a clade exclusive of gorillas, whereas previously it had been assumed that gorillas and chimps grouped together.)
But there are no clear contradictions in the molecular sequence data to otherwise SECURE inferences about evolutionary relationship, such as that humans and apes group exclusive of other animals, or anything like the other examples I gave.
Well, yeah. ALL such scientific constructs are "imposed" on the facts (constructed to explain and account for relevant facts). What's your complaint here?
BTW, historically, the scientists who "imposed" the fossil record on the facts WERE ALL CREATIONISTS.
All of the major divisions of the fossil record (save the Devonian, which was created to resolve a dispute about the boundary between the Silurian and Carboniferous, more here) were in place years before Darwin set sail on The Beagle, and decades before he published his theory.
Uh, so? Some genes are highly conserved. Note this leads to ANOTHER prediction (and potential falsification) of common descent. Genes that are highly conserved in humans, and chickens and puffer fish should also be highly conserved in other vertebrate animals as well.
I'll guarantee though that, however highly conserved relative to other genes, no given gene is MORE similar between humans and puffer fish than between humans and chickens.
How can I guarantee that this is the case, unless evolution DOES make falsifiable predictions?
Here is another one for you: Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
bookmark
Even a child should be able to understand this by now.
'Testing' radiocarbon dating means finding agreement and rationalizing the exclusion of outliers. Again, imposed by the mind of man according to what he wants to see.
Tree ring dating is based on correlating pieces of wood laying around a long-lived subject so you have an interpretive component there.
Then you must assume that each ring represents a year, another assumption not always true.
Then you must assume that they were counted correctly, a difficult task in slow-growing, long-lived species.
Altogether many, many places for interpretation.
Glad that you finally admit that scientific constructs are imposed on the facts. That was my initial and continuing position. There are no *facts* that falsify YEC.
As I said earlier, the fossil 'record' is so contrived as to be useless except to keep the little true-believer evos in line.
And if you are trying to hold me accountable for the thought of others, you would be mistaken. I am under no obligation to accept the pronouncements of any other person.
Debate w/ facts and arguments or don't debate at all.
That's how unfalsifiability works. If the genes are the same, they are 'highly conserved'. If they are not the same, they aren't 'highly conserved'.
It means nothing at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.